Miasto z różnorodnością. O badaniach warszawsko-praskich

• Authors: Korcelli-Olejniczak Ewa

Title variants

EN

A city of diversity: a study of the Warsaw district of Praga

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

Różnorodność społeczna jest dziś coraz bardziej istotnym zagadnieniem w globalnym dyskursie na temat miast i regionów – modnym hasłem odnoszącym się do specyfiki miejskich struktur społeczno-ekonomicznych. Heterogeniczność, która tworzy ‘miasta z innością’ towarzyszy takim zjawiskom jak międzynarodowe migracje, mobilność przestrzenna, postkolonializm, starzenie się społeczeństwa, znaczenie zjawiska merytokracji, występowanie i uznawanie różnicowania się indywidualnych i grupowych tożsamości, indywidualizacja jako cecha tzw. ‘płynnej nowoczesności’ opisywanej przez Z. Baumana. Różnorodność społeczna w mieście to złożone i wielowymiarowe zjawisko, przypisywane tradycyjnie podziałom klasowym i etnicznym, współcześnie obejmuje także wzrastającą kompleksowość indywidualnego i grupowego zachowania, stylów życia oraz wyznawanych wartości. W niniejszym artykule studium przykładowe to Warszawa, a w szczególności Praga-Północ – dzielnica charakteryzująca się degradacją oraz specyficzną różnorodnością społeczną towarzyszącą procesowi rewitalizacji. W analizie przyjęto, że różnorodność to zjawisko nieobojętne w procesie rozwoju dzielnicy, oddziaływające na spójność i mobilność społeczną oraz rozwój lokalnej przedsiębiorczości. Celem artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytania, czy Praga-Północ może stać się alternatywnym sercem dzielnicy – warszawskim Trastevere i jaką rolę odgrywa w tym procesie różnorodność społeczna obszaru.

EN

Social diversity is currently one of the key issues in the global discourse on cities and regions – a buzz word characterizing urban socio-spatial structures. Heterogeneity which creates ‘cities of difference’ increases due to transnational migration, growing spatial mobility, post-colonialism, population aging, growing importance of the ideology of meritocracy, increasing recognition of diversified human identities and ‘individualization’ as a feature of Z. Bauman’s ‘liquid modernity’. Urban social diversity is a complex and multi-layered phenomenon – traditionally attributed mainly to class and ethnic divisions, its scope is being extended due to the growing complexity of individual and group behaviour, lifestyles and attitudes. With Warsaw as a background study, the paper focuses on how case-specific social diversity of Praga-Północ affects the area’s development and whether it can directly or indirectly be used by local authorities and other actors to contribute to social cohesion and social mobility. The process of social upgrading referred to as early-stage gentrification, public and commercial investments, as well as the Integrated Revitalization Programme impact the dynamics of social, economic and spatial change. The paper attempts to answer the question of whether and how Praga’s diversity stimulates the area’s development on its way to becoming an alternative heart of the city – a Warsaw’s Trastevere.

Keywords

PL

różnorodność społeczna; wzrost jakości; spójność społeczna; Warszawa; Praga-Północ

EN

social diversity; upgrading; social cohesion; Warsaw; Praga-Północ

• Publisher: Mazowieckie Biuro Planowania Regionalnego w Warszawie
• Journal: MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne
• Year: 2018
• Issue: 27
• Pages: 65-79

Dates

published

2018-12

Contributors

author

Korcelli-Olejniczak Ewa

• IGiPZ PAN

References

• Altman L., Low S.M., 1992, Place Attachment (Human Behaviour and Environment), Plenum Press, New York, London.
• Badyina A., Golubchikov O. 2005, Gentrification in Central Moscow: A Market Process or a Deliberate Policy? Money, Power and People in Housing Regeneration in Ostozhenka, Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 87, s. 113-129.
• Bauman Z., 2000, Liquid Modernity, Polity Press, Malden.
• Bourdieu P., 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Routledge, London.
• Bridge G., Watson S., 2013. Reflections on Division and Difference [w:] G. Bridge, S. Watson (red.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City, Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.
• Brown B., Perkins D.D., Brown G., 2004, Incivilities, Place Attachment and Crime: Block and Individual Effects, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, s. 359-371.
• Bulter T. 2003, Living in the Bubble: Gentrification and its ‘Others’ in North London, Urban Studies, 40, s. 2469-2486.
• Cantle T., 2012, Interculturalism: For the Era of Globalisation, Cohesion and Diversity, Political Insight, 3, 3, s. 38-41.
• Castells M., 1983, The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movement, University of California Press, Berkeley.
• Corcoran M., 2002, Place Attachment and Community Sentiment: A European Case Study, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11, s. 47-67.
• Crow G., Allan G., 1994, Community Life: Introduction to Local Social Relationships, Routledge, London.
• Dekker K., 2007, Social Capital, Neighbourhood Attachment and Participation in Distressed Urban Areas: A Case Study in Utrecht and The Hague, Housing Studies, 22, s. 255-379.
• Derek M., Duda-Gromada K., Kosowska P., Kowalczyk A., Madurowicz M., 2013, Problemowe i problematyczne abc turystyki w Warszawie, Prace Geograficzne, 134, Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków, s. 7-36.
• Elias N., Scotson J.L., 1994, The Established and the Outsiders, Sage, London.
• Faist T., 2009, On the Transnational Social Question: How Social Inequalities are Reproduced in Europe, Journal of European Social Policy, 24, 3, s. 207-222.
• Florida R., 2002, The Rise of the Creative Class, Basic Books, New York.
• Fincher R., Jacobs J.M., 1998, Cities of Difference, Guilford Press, New York-London.
• Fincher R., Iveson K., 2008, Planning and Diversity in the City: Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
• Forrest R., Kearns A., 1999, Joined-Up Places? Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Regeneration, York Publishing Services for Joseph Rowntree Trust, York.
• Gitell R., Vidal A., 1998, Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy, Sage Publishing, London.
• Glass R., 1964, London. Aspects of Change, Report No. 3, Centre for Urban Studies, Macgibbon&Kee, London.
• Goodhart D., 2004,’Too Diverse?’ Prospect (on-line), Prospect, London, http://www.Prospectmagazine.Co.Uk/2004/02/Toodiverse-David-Goodhart-Multiculturalism-Britainimmigration-Globalisation/ [dostęp: 1.02.2011].
• Granovetter M.S., 1973, The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78, s. 1360-1380.
• Hay R., 1998, Sense of Place in a Developmental Context, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, s. 5-29.
• Jackson E., Butler T., 2014, Revisiting ‘Social Tectonics’: The Middle Classes and Social Mix in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 51, s. 1512-1528.
• Jałowiecki B., 2010, Społeczne wytwarzanie przestrzeni, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa.
• Korcelli-Olejniczak E., Piotrowski P., 2015, Hiperróżnorodność w mieście – znaczenie, wyzwanie, zasób [w:] A. Wolaniuk (red.), XXVIII Konwersatorium wiedzy o mieście: Współczesne czynniki i bariery rozwoju miast, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, s. 169-178.
• Korcelli-Olejniczak E., Bierzyński A., Dworzański P., Grochowski M., Piotrowski F., Węcławowicz G., 2017, Divercities: Dealing with Urban Diversity. The Case of Warsaw, Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN, Warszawa.
• Korcelli-Olejniczak E., 2017a, Degraded and Upgraded? Economic Activity in a Diversifying Inner-City Subarea, Argomenti: Rivista di Ecomia, Cultura e Ricerca Sociale, 8, 3, s. 61-78.
• Korcelli-Olejniczak E., 2017b, Governing Urban Diversity: Creating Social Cohesion, Social Mobility and Economic Performance in Today’s Hyper-Diversified Cities (Divercities) – The Case of Warsaw, Geographia Polonica, 90, 2, s. 123-130.
• Korcelli-Olejniczak E., Piotrowski F., 2017, Diverse and Different: On the Faces of Social Solidarity in Warsaw, Geographia Polonica, 90,3, s. 265-277.
• Korcelli-Olejniczak E., Piotrowski F., 2018, Neighbouring the Different: Social Interaction in a Warsaw Subarea, Bulletin of Geography, Socio–Economic Series, 39, s. 53-63.
• Lees L., Slater T., Wyly E., 2008, Gentrification, Routledge, New York, London.
• Lewicka M., 2008, Place Attachment Place Identity and Place Memory: Restoring the Forgotten City Past, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, s. 208-231.
• Middleton A., Murie A., Growes R., 2005, Social Capital and Neighbourhoods That Work, Urban Studies, 42, s. 1711-1738.
• Ouředníček M., Pospíšilová L., Špačková P., Temelová J., Novák J., 2012, Prostorová Typologie a Zonace Prahy [w:] M. Ouředníček, J. Temelová (red.), Sociální Proměny Pražských Čtvrtí, Academia, Praha, s. 268-297.
• Pattillo M., 2007, Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Peters K., Elands B.,Buijs A. 2010, Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9, s. 93-100.
• Pinkster F.M., Permentier M., Wittebrood K., 2014, Moving Considerations of Middle-Class Residents in Dutch Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods: Exploring the Relationship Between Disorder and Attachment, Environment and Planning, 46, s. 2898-2914.
• Putnam R. D., 2000, Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York.
• Putnam R.D., 2007, E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century, Nordic Political Science Association.
• Riger S., Lavrakas P. J., 1981, Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods, American Journal of Community Psychology 9, s. 55-66.
• Rose D., 1984, Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist Urban Theory, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1, s. 47-74.
• Rothenberg T., 1995, And She Told Two Friends: Lesbian Creating Urban Social Space [w:] D. Bell, G. Valentine (red.), In Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities, Routledge, London, s. 165-181.
• Sandercock L., 2000, When Strangers Become Neighbours: Managing Cities of Difference, Journal of Planning Theory and Practice, 1, 1, s. 13–20.
• Smith D. P., 2005, ‘Studentification’: The Gentrification Factory? [w:] W.R. Atkinson, G. Bridge (red.), Gentrification in a Global Context. The New Urban Colonialism, Routledge, London, s. 72-89.
• Smith N., 1987, Of Yuppies and Housing: Gentrification, Social Restructuring and the Urban Dream, Environment and Planning D, 5, s. 151-172.
• Sykora L., Bouzarovski S., 2011, Multiple Transformations: Conceptualising the Post-Communist Urban Transition, Urban Studies, 49, 1, s. 43-60.
• Syrett S., Sevulveda L., 2011, Realising Diversity Dividend: Population Diversity and Economic Development, Environment and Planning A, 43, 2, s. 487-504.
• Simonton D.K., 1999, Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Taylor, M. 2003, Harlem: Between Heaven and Hell, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
• Tasan-Kok T., Kempen Van R., Raco M., Bolt G., 2014, Towards Hyper-Diversified European Cities: A Critical Literature Review, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
• Tölle A., 2014, Transnationalisation of Urban Development Strategies: Peculiarities of the East-Central European Post-Socialist City [w:] L. Mierzejewska, J. Parysek (red.), Cities in a Complex World: Problems, Challenges and Prospects, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, s. 105-118.
• Tuan Y. F., 1977, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
• Vertovec S., 2007, Super-Diversity and its Implication, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 6, s. 1024-1054.
• Vertovec S., 2010, Towards Post-Multiculturalism? Changing Communities, Conditions and Contexts of Diversity, International Social Science Journal, 61, 199, s. 83-95.
• Van Kempen R., Van Weesep J., 1994, Gentrification and the Urban Poor: Urban Restructuring and Housing Policy in Utrecht, Urban Studies, 31, 7, s. 1043-156.
• Van Weesep J., 1994, Gentrification as a Research Frontier, Progress in Human Geography, 18, s. 74-83.
• Vorkin M., Riese H., 2001, Environmental Concern in a Local Context. The Significance of Place Attachment, Environment and Behavior, 33, s. 249–263.
• Webber S.S., Donahue L.M., 2001, Impact of Highly and Less Job-Related Diversity on Work Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Management, 27,2, s. 141-162.
• Wellman B., Wortley S., 1990, Different Strokes from Different Folks. Community Ties and Social Support, American Journal of Sociology, 96, s. 558–588.
• Wirth L., 1938, Urbanism as a Way of Life, American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1, s. 1-24.
• Wirth L., 1956, Life in the City [w:] L. Wirth, E. Wirth Marvick, A.J. Reiss (red.), Community Life and Social Policy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago-London, s. 206-217.
• Wood L.J., Giles-Corti B., Bulsara M.K., Bosch D.A., 2007, More than a Furry Companion: The Ripple Effect of Companion Animals on Neighbourhood Interactions and Sense of Community, Society and Animals, 15, 43-56.

Identifiers

DOI

10.21858/msr.27.04